Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > we do not remove packages just because they're build from cvs.
> > being build from cvs rather than an official release does not
> > imply less stability (there're packages for which this is false
> > ...).
> 
> I didn't say this. What I said is that the package definitely
> doesn't work with the latest GIMP-1.3 releases and that rebuilding
> the package will not fix this. You will need to use a recent CVS
> checkout.

and i never said the reverse
 
> I also kindly asked you to consider changing the name of the
> package.

i considered it. i gived my opinion. i wille left the final words on
initial packagers but i do think that this name nicely show that it's
not for gimp-1.2.x.

here's why:

1) package coexistance:
=======================

since i'll package the 0.2.x version for the gimp-1.2.x branch, the
cvs snapthot for gimp1.3.x will either be named gimp1.3-0.4 or
gimp2-0.4.

since mdk9.2 came with a gimp2-freetype package with hard dependancie
on libgimp1.3_20-1.3.20-1mdk, i do not think it's a problem that we've
now a new cvs snapshot packaged as gimp2-freetype that require that
requires libgimp1.3_23-1.3.23.

2) naming coherency:
====================

of course, we can rename it now. but as:

- mdk9.2 contribs came with gimp2-freetype

- renaming current package would only affect cooker which is just a
  moving development distro that is not for end users but for cooker
  developers

- gimp-devel stated that gimp-2.x will come soon, so mdk10.0
  would provide gimp2 and gimp2-freetype

i do not think it's wise to rename this package only in a package
repositery that is not used by end users.

that would force us to use an epoch tag in that package for no good
reason since eventualle the package name would be the same in two
consequent mandrake linux releases.

we unofficially plan to release mdk10.0 in february.

we'll either keep gimp-1.2.x in main and gimp1.3.x in contribs or
we'll provide both gimp-1.2.x and gimp-2.0.x in main (and then in next
release, gimp-1.2.x would go in contribs or just vanish)

after reading gimp-devel, i think the odds're high that gimp-1.3.x
will at leat be some gimp-2 pre-release at that time, so i really
think that this renaming is uneeded (thus preventing useless moves in
spec files cvs module due to package renaming).

_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to